As far as I'm aware this is the only place one can find the weight, length, width, and movements of Cambo, Arca, and Alpa tech cameras in one place. It also has the full specifications for all modern Schneider/Rodenstock tech camera lenses including image circle, size, weight, and compatibility with the higher resolution digital backs.

This is in addition to the Tech Camera Visualization Tools (to which we owe a great deal to the forums for useful feedback on design/features/clarity) and the Arca and Cambo product pages in which we believe we present the most comprehensive feature/use evaluation available for these systems anywhere.

Isn't the party over for technical cameras in this digital age? I enjoyed using them long ago, and would like to think there may be some life left in the old gal in spite of my empirical conclusions to the contrary. But honestly I have no recent firsthad experience, and am ready to be corrected.

What backs are you considering?

We have seen examples here of digital back fails from rather modest lens twiddling, and there is this in the article which I sense may be a little understated...

DB Compatibility: Smaller pixel sizes (in microns) cannot accept light from strong angles. The IQ180 with 5.2 micron pixels, for instance, does not work well with the Schneider 28XL or 35XL. "Limited" means you cannot use the entire image circle - when doing large shifts/rise/tilt/swing/stitching you may encounter severe color cast. When using a combination marked "limited" it is very important to use a center filter wherever practical.

I think tech cameras have been on the upswing for digital backs for the last few years. Over at getDPI there many of the mfdb shooters have migrated to one. I tried an Alpa once, but didn't like it much. After watching Rodney Lough work with one for a few days, I learned a great deal about how to use one more effectively. Thinking about trying it again, this time with an Arca Swiss.

Isn't the party over for technical cameras in this digital age? I enjoyed using them long ago, and would like to think there may be some life left in the old gal in spite of my empirical conclusions to the contrary. But honestly I have no recent firsthand experience, and am ready to be corrected.

Just my opinion but having gone from a 645 AFD/DF with Mamiya and Schnieder SLR lenses to a Cambo WRS/ Rodenstock HR's the primary reason is not the tilts/swings/shifts but the technical lenses, Rodenstock/Schneider. They are an order of magnitude better than the SLR lenses. I would be happy with very few movements and the use of my HR lensesMarc

I think it's the iq180 that has made tech cameras look a bit bad on the forums due to its relatively poor handling of wide angles. But now there is iq260 which is just as good as iq160 and p65+ in that regard.

Among advanced amateurs, which is a growing market, I think tech cameras is a very important genre. It provides an all different shooting experience which is attractive to many in landscape photography for example, while it actually may be harder to see the enjoyment/value/advantages of a 645 slr compared to the latest smaller format offerings. I'm one of those users.

I don't think it is the IQ180 that has made technical cameras look "bad." Imho, it is the higher resolution Dalsa sensor and its pitch that is more demanding of the lenses, and consequently is more limiting on the user with regard to the choice of wide angle lenses, e.g., Rodenstock retrofocal lenses, and how much movement is desired. It's similar to the use of the Mamiya/Phase AF/DF bodies when Phase first shifted to the Dalsa sensor with the P65+ and especially with the move to the IQ180's 80MP sensor. Many users found that their old Mamiya lenses (which work fine on earlier MFDBs) were pushed beyond their limits, and quickly found themselves relegated to using only the latest "D-series" and Schneider LS lenses. There is no free lunch. So similarly here, the IQ180 is a great performer on a technical camera; it's just that you earned yourself the honor of opening your wallet a bit more to buy the latest Rodenstock lenses (at least on the wide-side).

The IQ260/IQ160/P65+ are in the "sweet spot" only because that seems to be the tipping point at which the user can use both the Schneider and Rodenstock lenses and still correct for lens cast easily with the use of LCC in C1 Pro. There are simply more choices in lenses, and with ample resolution at 60MP. Those who want more (80MP) get to pay more for wide-angle lenses (especially for movements). But all users are happy in the end.

Maybe it's just semantics, but imho, it is the demands of the IQ180 (and probably IQ280) sensor that have unfairly led some to disown the Schneider 35xl as the problematic red-headed step-child twice removed. Unless you're shooting with an 80MP sensor, the 35xl remains a very good lens, though recent IQ180 criticism of the 35xl can probably be blamed for its lower recent market price. I would not doubt that Schneider is working on releasing a new lens line, just so in the name of equality, everyone can pay the same high price for lenses.

Isn't the party over for technical cameras in this digital age? I enjoyed using them long ago, and would like to think there may be some life left in the old gal in spite of my empirical conclusions to the contrary. But honestly I have no recent firsthad experience, and am ready to be corrected.

Our tech camera sales are up year over year for the last three years. The live view, 100% review, focus mask, and now wireless review of the newer generation of Phase/Leaf backs have made them a more practical/enjoyable/fool-proof solution than with past backs.

If you're in NYC at any point you're also welcome to come play with a modern incarnation of tech cameras to get more hands on experience from which to judge.

Tech cameras are used by various kinds of photographers for various reasons:Lens Quality: (likely to hold true as long as Nikon/Canon/Hassy/Phase SLR bodies have a mirror box - see about wide angle lens design constraints)Movements: on (nearly) all lensesTraditional/tactile physical interface: large knobs, mechanical dials and a very direct connection to the imaging process (personal preference of course)Flash sync speedLighter/smaller when compared to an SLR (obviously only applies to the small body/lens combos like the RC400+35XL)

It's not a solution right for everyone. In fact it's surely one of the more narrowly applicable tools out there. That's one of the reasons I love them; they are designed to excel at a narrow range of applications (landscape, architecture, interior, street) rather than do pretty well at everything.

The table is based on extensive personal, professional, and consultative experience with Leaf Aptus II, Credo, Phase One IQ, and IQ260 backs. Results for other brands/models are likely to be very similar when comparing non-micro-lensed backs of similar pixel size, but you'd want to consult with experts in those other systems or do your own testing to be sure.

We have seen examples here of digital back fails from rather modest lens twiddling

Indeed, a 28XL and IQ180 for instance show problems even with no movement. Hence that lens/back combo is listed as a "no" for compatibility.

But this is an issue of very specific combinations. If you use a bad combination of lens and back (namely Schneider wide angles with an 5.2 micron back) you will get very poor results. All other combinations work extremely well. That's one of the main goals of this chart is to show which combinations are not recommended, and which combinations will be movement-limited compared to their stated image circles.

, and there is this in the article which I sense may be a little understated...

DB Compatibility: Smaller pixel sizes (in microns) cannot accept light from strong angles. The IQ180 with 5.2 micron pixels, for instance, does not work well with the Schneider 28XL or 35XL. "Limited" means you cannot use the entire image circle - when doing large shifts/rise/tilt/swing/stitching you may encounter severe color cast. When using a combination marked "limited" it is very important to use a center filter wherever practical.

I don't see what's understated. We've clearly listed the lens/back combos which are limited or incompatible. If you feel one of the lens/back combos is not correctly listed please say so here or email me and I'll be glad to reconsider. But I think this is a very fair breakdown (based on many dozen hours of my own testing, and working with many tech camera customers over several years).

If anything I think this listing is overly conservative in that it lists the 35XL as "no" for compatibility with an IQ180 when you can use it with movements up to around 10mm. But I figured it was better be conservative in the chart and have a conversation on a client-by-client basis about what expectations/priorities/needs they have. A street shooter using an Cambo RC400 with no need for movements for instance would be better off (in my opinion) with the smaller, lighter, less expensive 35XL than the Rodenstock 32HR (in contrast an architectural shooter would likely be better off with a 32HR budget allowing).

This is great to see. Thanks for doing this. Will you be adding to your lens list? Maybe the Apo Sironars (good value), and also the just previous version of the Rodie 90 HRW.

You're welcome. We don't have plans at the moment to cover legacy lenses in this chart. But it's not out of the question for the future. Thanks for the suggestion! Lenses like the 90HR-W are indeed a good value, especially for lower res backs.

I don't think it is the IQ180 that has made technical cameras look "bad."

Yes I guess it's the way one likes to see it. I'm not particularly fond of overly complex retrofocus lens designs with distortion, ie I prefer Schneiders "old school" designs. Personally I think some of the Rodies push the resolution aspect too far and optimal aperture too large, sacrificing some of the traditional large format properties. Resolution is not the only aspect of image quality. I hope not all lenses will be pushed down that road, and when the IQ260 appeared which is going to be the next number one high-end tech cam choice I'm sure, it feels a bit better as it works better with traditional designs.

Doug, Lance and the DT tools helped me a lot in me getting the right gear with confidence. I wanted this camera to do primarily Landscape and some Architecture photography.

The Arca rm3di is just a superb camera and the 40mm HR is just perfect if you want a wide angle that can do a lot of movement without extreme lcc corrections. It works great with the IQ160 and should with any future back. I have made some shots where I have used rise, shift and tilt in the same capture. On average I am using about 10mm rise/fall and have used up to 12.5mm with amazing results. If you are on the fence about the schneider wide angles or the Rodenstock and are planning on using a large sensor back (60/80mp) do not mess about and get the Rodenstock.

The lens is in another realm of optical quality compared to any lens I have ever used. Edge to edge.

I know C++, Javascript, Applescript, HTML, CSS, SQL, and an obscure Vibration Analysis macro language. I'm no wiz with them, but I can usually stumble my way through making a useful tool. But for some reason when I tried learning to code for iOS a few years ago or so I stalled hard. It seems like, just with cameras, some programming languages/environments jive with some users and not others.

I might try it again this fall. The iOS tools have improved since then and I've got more coding experience.